Dave Emory’s entire life­time of work is avail­able on a flash drive that can be obtained HERE. The new drive is a 32-gigabyte drive that is current as of the programs and articles posted by early winter of 2016. The new drive (available for a tax-deductible contribution of $65.00 or more.) (The previous flash drive was current through the end of May of 2012.)

WFMU-FM is podcasting For The Record–You can subscribe to the podcast HERE.

Introduction: The second of a two-part series reviewing information about what the brilliant Berkeley researcher Peter Dale Scott calls “level one coverup” of the JFK assassination, this broadcast presents part of the “painting of Oswald Red,” by way of giving us historical perspective on the apparent framing of
Russia for the hack of the DNC and the “non-hack” of NSA cyberweapons by the “Shadow Brokers.”

On November 22, 1963, President Kennedy’s assassination fundamentally altered the American political landscape, neutralizing JFK’s peace initiatives in Europe, Southeast Asia and Cuba. Furthermore, LBJ was manipulated into pursuing the open-ended Vietnam commitment JFK had studiously avoided.

In past discussion of “Eddie the Friendly Spook,” we have characterized him as “the Obverse Oswald.” With their exercise of “Technocratic Fascism,” “Team Snowden” is destroying American democracy as definitively and effectively as the bullets in Dealy Plaza did on 11/22/1963.

Supplementing and summing up the exhaustive FTR series on “The Eddie the Friendly Spook” series, this program sets forth the Snowden “psy-op” and the high-profile hacks against the background of Lee Harvey Oswald, the U.S. spy infiltrated into the Soviet Union and then into leftist organizations in the United States, Oswald was framed for JFK’s assassination and then killed before he could defend himself.

Whereas Oswald was portrayed as a villain, Eddie the Friendly Spook’s operation is the obverse, with Snowden portrayed as a hero, while decamping first to China and then to Russia.

For purposes of convenience and continuity, we begin this description by reviewing and synopsizing information indicating that Russia has been framed for the “Shadow Brokers” alleged hack of the NSA, much as it appears to have been framed for the DNC hack. Indeed, with both the DNC hack and the “Shadow Brokers” non-hack of the NSA, the evidence points increasingly toward “Team Snowden” and Eddie the Friendly Spook himself.

Points of information reviewed include:

Evidence suggesting that Russia was NOT behind the DNC hacks. ” . . . . None of the technical evidence is convincing. It would only be convincing if the attackers used entirely novel, unique, and sophisticated tools with unmistakable indicators pointing to Russia supported by human intelligence, not by malware analysis.The DNC attackers also had very poor, almost comical, operational security (OPSEC). State actors tend to have a quality assurance review when developing cyberattack tools to minimize the risk of discovery and leaving obvious crumbs behind. Russian intelligence services are especially good. They are highly capable, tactically and strategically agile, and rational. They ensure that offensive tools are tailored and proportionate to the signal they want to send, the possibility of disclosure and public perception, and the odds of escalation. The shoddy OPSEC just doesn’t fit what we know about Russian intelligence. . . . Given these arguments, blaming Russia is not a slam dunk. Why would a country with some of the best intelligence services in the world commit a whole series of really stupid mistakes in a highly sensitive operation?Why pick a target that has a strong chance of leading to escalatory activity when Russia is known to prefer incremental actions over drastic ones? Why go through the trouble of a false flag when doing nothing would have been arguably better?. . . .”

Information indicating that the NSA “hack” may well not have been a hack at all, but the work of an insider downloading the information onto a USB drive. “. . . Their claim to have ‘hacked’ a server belonging to the NSA is fishy. According to ex-NSA insiders who spoke with Business Insider, the agency’s hackers don’t just put their exploits and toolkits online where they can potentially be pilfered. The more likely scenario for where the data came from, says ex-NSA research scientist Dave Aitel, is an insider who downloaded it onto a USB stick. . . . When hackers gain access to a server, they keep quiet about it so they can stay there. . . .One of the many strange things about this incident is the very public nature of what transpired. When a hacker takes over your computer, they don’t start activating your webcam or running weird programs because you’d figure out pretty quickly that something was up and you’d try to get rid of them. . . . . . . If the Shadow Brokers owned the NSA’s command and control server, then it would probably be a much better approach to just sit back, watch, and try to pivot to other interesting things that they might be able to find. . . People sell exploits all the time, but they hardly ever talk about it. . . . Most of the time, an exploit is either found by a security research firm, which then writes about it and reports it to the company so it can fix the problem. Or, a hacker looking for cash will take that found exploit and sell it on the black market. So it would make sense for a group like Shadow Brokers to want to sell their treasure trove, but going public with it is beyond strange. . . .”

Eddie the Friendly Spook endorsed the cover story of the Shadow Brokers’ NSA “hack”–that the event was a hack (despite indicators to the contrary) and that Russia did it. “ . . . If you ask ex-NSA contractor Edward Snowden, the public leak and claims of the Shadow Brokers seem to have Russian fingerprints all over them, and it serves as a warning from Moscow to Washington. The message: If your policymakers keep blaming us for the DNC hack, then we can use this hack to implicate you in much more.‘That could have significant foreign policy consequences,’ Snowden wrote on Twitter. ‘Particularly if any of those operations targeted US allies. Particularly if any of those operations targeted elections. . . .”

The code in the files was from 2013, when Snowden undertook his “op.” “. . . .The code released by the Shadow Brokers dates most recently to 2013, the same year Edward Snowden leaked classified information about the NSA’s surveillance programs.. . .Snowden also noted that the released files end in 2013. ‘When I came forward, NSA would have migrated offensive operations to new servers as a precaution,’ he suggested — a move that would have cut off the hackers’ access to the server. . . . “

Author James Bamford highlighted circumstantial evidence that WikiLeaker Jacob Applebaum–who appears to have facilitated Snowden’s journey from Hawaii to Hong Kong–may have been behind the Shadow Brokers non-hack. “. . . . There also seems to be a link between Assange and the leaker who stole the ANT catalog, and the possible hacking tools. Among Assange’s close associates is Jacob Appelbaum, a celebrated hacktivist and the only publicly known WikiLeaks staffer in the United States – until he moved to Berlin in 2013 in what he called a “political exile” because of what he said was repeated harassment by U.S. law enforcement personnel. In 2010, a Rolling Stone magazine profile labeled him “the most dangerous man in cyberspace.”In December 2013, Appelbaum was the first person to reveal the existence of the ANT catalog, at a conference in Berlin, without identifying the source. That same month he said he suspected the U.S. government of breaking into his Berlin apartment. He also co-wrote an article about the catalog in Der Spiegel. But again, he never named a source, which led many to assume, mistakenly, that it was Snowden. . . .”

Applebaum was anti-Clinton, sentiments expressed in the clumsy Boris and Natasha-like broken English that accompanied announcement of the Shadow Brokers’ gambit. “. . . . Shortly thereafter, he [Applebaum] turned his attention to Hillary Clinton. At a screening of a documentary about Assange in Cannes, France, Appelbaum accused her of having a grudge against him and Assange, and that if she were elected president, she would make their lives difficult. ‘It’s a situation that will possibly get worse’ if she is elected to the White House, he said, according to Yahoo News. . . .. . . . In hacktivist style, and in what appears to be phony broken English, this new release of cyberweapons also seems to be targeting Clinton. It ends with a long and angry ‘final message” against ‘Wealthy Elites . . . breaking laws’ but ‘Elites top friends announce, no law broken, no crime commit[ed]. . . Then Elites run for president. Why run for president when already control country like dictatorship?’ . . .”

The e-mail account used by the Shadow Brokers is in Germany and is resistant to attempts at disclosing users’ information. Applebaum, Laura Poitras, Sarah Harrison and Peter Sunde are in Germany. “. . . He said Tutanota had only ever been forced to hand over encrypted data of its users a few times and it has a transparency report where it discloses those cases. ‘However, we release data only in very, very few cases … And when we have to provide the data due to a court order, it is still encrypted,’ Pfau added, going on to explain the company’s stance on surveillance. . . .”

Recall that, in FTR #’s 891 and 895, we noted that Snowden was working for the CIA in the summer of 2009 when he decided to infiltrate NSA and leak its information. NSA “non-hack” suspect Applebaum and much of the so-called “privacy” advocates have received funding from CIA-derived organizations such as the Broadcasting Board of Governors, Radio Free Asia and the Open Technology Fund. What role is the CIA playing in this? “. . . Jacob Appelbaum’s will­ing­ness to work directly for an old CIA cutout like Radio Free Asia in a nation long tar­geted for regime-change is cer­tainly odd, to say the least. Par­tic­u­larly since Appel­baum made a big pub­lic show recently claim­ing that, though it pains him that Tor takes so much money from the US mil­i­tary, he would never take money from some­thing as evil as the CIA. . . .. . . Appelbaum’s finan­cial rela­tion­ships with var­i­ous CIA spin­offs like Radio Free Asia and the BBG go fur­ther. From 2012 through 2013, Radio Free Asia trans­ferred about $1.1 mil­lion to Tor in the form of grants and con­tracts. This mil­lion dol­lars comes on top of another $3.4 mil­lion Tor received from Radio Free Asia’s par­ent agency, the BBG, start­ing from 2007. . . . . . . . Though many of the apps and tech backed by Radio Free Asia’s OTF are unknown to the gen­eral pub­lic, they are highly respected and extremely pop­u­lar among the anti-surveillance Inter­net activist crowd. OTF-funded apps have been rec­om­mended by Edward Snow­den, cov­ered favor­ably by ProP­ub­lica and The New York Times’ tech­nol­ogy reporters, and repeat­edly pro­moted by the Elec­tronic Fron­tier Foun­da­tion. Every­one seems to agree that OTF-funded pri­vacy apps offer some of the best pro­tec­tion from gov­ern­ment sur­veil­lance you can get. In fact, just about all the fea­tured open-source apps on EFF’s recent “Secure Mes­sag­ing Score­card” were funded by OTF. . . .. . . . You’d think that anti-surveillance activists like Chris Soghoian, Jacob Appel­baum, Cory Doc­torow and Jil­lian York would be staunchly against out­fits like BBG and Radio Free Asia, and the role they have played — and con­tinue to play — in work­ing with defense and cor­po­rate inter­ests to project and impose U.S. power abroad. Instead, these rad­i­cal activists have know­ingly joined the club, and in doing so, have become will­ing pitch­men for a wing of the very same U.S. National Secu­rity State they so adamantly oppose. . . .”

The vast bulk of the program material consists of a reading of an excerpt from JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters by James Douglass. As we have seen in so many programs, JFK was moving to drastically reduce Cold War tensions by implementing a number of things, including withdrawing the U.S. from Vietnam and normalizing relations with Cuba.

Continuing a pattern of subverting White House attempts at achieving detente with the former Soviet Union, dominant elements of CIA “painted Oswald red.” A major feature of that successful effort was a visit to Mexico City by Oswald, and/or someone pretending to be Oswald, where the patsy-to-be visited the Cuban consulate and Soviet embassy, ostensibly attempting to obtain entry documents to both countries.

Noteworthy, here, is “Oswald’s” meeting with Valery Kostikov, a KGB assassination expert at the Soviet embassy. This liaison appears to have played into the scenario presented in FTR #925, in which Oswald was linked by elements of the W.A.C.C.F.L. with the assassination of Ukrainian fascist leader Stephan Bandera.

Signficant aspects of the “Oswald” who operated in Mexico City:

The “Oswald” who contacted the Soviet Embassy spoke broken Russian. ” . . . . Equally noteworthy in the October 9 cable is the evidence it provides that the “Lee Oswald” who made the October 1 phone call was an impostor. The caller, it said, “spoke broken Russian.” The real Oswald was fluent in Russian. . . .”

The “Oswald” who visited the Soviet Embassy did not appear to be Oswald. ” . . . . The cable went on to say that the Mexico City Station had surveillance photos of a man who appeared to be an American entering and leaving the Soviet Embassy on October 1. He was described as ‘apparent age 35, athletic build, circa 6 feet, receding hairline, balding top.’ In a CIA cable back to Mexico City on October 10, the Lee Oswald who defected to the U.S.S.R. in October 1959 was described as not quite 24, ‘five feet ten inches, one hundred sixty five pounds, light brown wavy hair, blue eyes.’ . . .”

The “Oswald” who contacted the Cubans in Mexico City behaved strangely, arousing the suspicion of diplomats and employees of the embassy. ” . . . [Silvia] Duran was a little suspicious of Oswald. She felt the American was too eager in displaying his leftist credentials: membership cards in the Fair Play for Cuba Committee and the American Communist Party, old Soviet documents, a newspaper clipping on his arrest in New Orleans, a photo of Oswald being escorted by a policeman on each arm that Duran thought looked Phony. Duran also knew that belonging to the Communist Party was illegal in Mexico in 1963. For that reason, a Communist would normally travel in the country with only a passport. Yet here was Oswald documented in a way that invited his arrest. . . .”

Soviet diplomats were also confronted with strange behavior: ” . . . Oswald listened with growing exasperation. ‘When I had finished speaking,’ Nechiporenko recalled, ‘he slowly leaned forward and, barely able to restrain himself, practically shouted in my face, ‘This won’t do for me? This is not my case? For me, it’s all going to end in tragedy!’ Nechiporenko showed the unruly American out of the compound. Oswald returned to the Soviet Embassy the next morning. He renewed his request for a quick visa to the U.S.S.R., this time to Valery Kostikov (this being their September 28 meeting) and Soviet consul Pavel Yatskov. Oswald became even more agitated than he had been the day before, referring to FBI surveillance and persecution. He took a revolver from his jacket pocket, placed it on a table, and said, ‘See? This is what I must now carry to protect my life.’ The Soviet officials carefully took the gun and removed its bullets. They told Oswald once again they could not give him a quick visa. They offered him instead the necessary forms to be filled out. Oswald didn’t take them. Oleg Nechiporenko joined the three men as their conversation was ending. For the second day in a row, he accompanied a depressed Oswald to the gate of the embassy, this time with Oswald’s returned revolver and its loose bullets stuck back in his jacket pocket. Nechiporenko says that he, Kostikov, and Yatskov then immediately prepared a report on Oswald’s two embassy visits that they cabled to Moscow Center. . . .”

Significant elements of the “Oswald” visit appear to have been fabricated from whole cloth: ” . . . Oswald’s three visits to the Cuban Consulate on September 27, and his two visits to the Soviet Embassy on September 28 phone transcript sent by Richard Helms to J. Edgar Hoover. The CIA’s transcript states that the Saturday, September 28, call came from the Cuban Consulate. The first speaker is identified as Silvia Duran. However, Silvia Duran has insisted repeatedly over the years, first, that the Cuban Embassy was closed to the public on Saturdays, and second, that she never took part in such a call. ‘Duran’ is said to be phoning the Soviet Consulate. Oleg Nechiporenko denies in turn that this call occurred. He says it was impossible because the Soviet switchboard was closed. The ‘Duran’ speaker in the transcript says that an American in her consulate, who had been in the Soviet Embassy, wants to talk to them. She passes the phone to a North American man. The American insists that he and the Soviet representative speak Russian. They engage in a conversation, with the American speaking with the translator describes as ‘terrible hardly recognizable Russian.’ This once again argues against the speaker being Oswald, given his fluent Russian. . . .”

The upshot of the ersatz Oswald operating in Mexico City, linking himself to the Cubans and Soviets and, in turn, to KGB assassination expert Valery Kostikov, was to position the incoming President (LBJ) to pursue a heightened Cold War, neutralizing JFK’s attempts at establishing detente with the Soviet Union: ” . . . . One must give the CIA (and the assassination sponsors that were even further in the shadows) their due for having devised and executed a brilliant setup. They had played out a scenario to Kennedy’s death in Dallas that pressured other government authorities to choose among three major options: a war of vengeance against Cuba and the Soviet Union based on the CIA’s false Mexico City documentation of a Communist assassination plot; a domestic political war based on the same documents seen truly, but a war the CIA would fight with every covert weapon at its command; or a complete cover-up of any conspiracy evidence and a silent coup d’etat that would reverse Kennedy’s efforts to end the Cold War. . . .”

We observe that the orgiastic media propaganda blaming Russia for the DNC hack and the Shadow Brokers “non-hack” (with its ludicrous Boris-and-Natasha-like broken English), on top of the propaganda excoriating Russia about Ukraine and Syria, places Hillary Clinton in a similar position as LBJ. It will be extremely difficult for her to avoid being sucked in to the New Cold War.

We note again, with great emphasis, that the operation fronted for by “the Obverse Oswald” (Snowden) destroyed the Obama/Clinton State Department’s re-boot with Russia as thoroughly as the JFK assassination, with its “painting of Oswald Red” destroyed JFK’s attempts at establishing detente with the U.S.S.R.

Program Highlights Include:

Review of Pierre Omidyar’s role in the Maidan coup in Ukraine, which saw the return to power of the successors to Bandera’s OUN/B.

Review of Snowden’s placing of his files with Omidyar and Nazi fellow-traveler Glenn Greenwald.

1. For purposes of continuity and convenience, we review information about the high-profile hacks, which Mr. Emory has compared to the “painting of Oswald red.”

There are disturbing indications that Russia has been framed for the “Shadow Brokers” alleged hack of the NSA, much as it appears to have been framed for the DNC hack. Indeed, with both the DNC hack and the “Shadow Brokers” non-hack of the NSA, the evidence points increasingly toward “Team Snowden” and Eddie the Friendly Spook himself. (WikiLeaks is part of “Team Snowden.”)

Points of information reviewed include:

Evidence suggesting that Russia was NOT behind the DNC hacks. ” . . . . None of the technical evidence is convincing. It would only be convincing if the attackers used entirely novel, unique, and sophisticated tools with unmistakable indicators pointing to Russia supported by human intelligence, not by malware analysis.The DNC attackers also had very poor, almost comical, operational security (OPSEC). State actors tend to have a quality assurance review when developing cyberattack tools to minimize the risk of discovery and leaving obvious crumbs behind. Russian intelligence services are especially good. They are highly capable, tactically and strategically agile, and rational. They ensure that offensive tools are tailored and proportionate to the signal they want to send, the possibility of disclosure and public perception, and the odds of escalation. The shoddy OPSEC just doesn’t fit what we know about Russian intelligence. . . . Given these arguments, blaming Russia is not a slam dunk. Why would a country with some of the best intelligence services in the world commit a whole series of really stupid mistakes in a highly sensitive operation?Why pick a target that has a strong chance of leading to escalatory activity when Russia is known to prefer incremental actions over drastic ones? Why go through the trouble of a false flag when doing nothing would have been arguably better?. . . .”

Information indicating that the NSA “hack” may well not have been a hack at all, but the work of an insider downloading the information onto a USB drive. “. . . Their claim to have ‘hacked’ a server belonging to the NSA is fishy. According to ex-NSA insiders who spoke with Business Insider, the agency’s hackers don’t just put their exploits and toolkits online where they can potentially be pilfered. The more likely scenario for where the data came from, says ex-NSA research scientist Dave Aitel, is an insider who downloaded it onto a USB stick. . . . When hackers gain access to a server, they keep quiet about it so they can stay there. . . .One of the many strange things about this incident is the very public nature of what transpired. When a hacker takes over your computer, they don’t start activating your webcam or running weird programs because you’d figure out pretty quickly that something was up and you’d try to get rid of them. . . . . . . If the Shadow Brokers owned the NSA’s command and control server, then it would probably be a much better approach to just sit back, watch, and try to pivot to other interesting things that they might be able to find. . . People sell exploits all the time, but they hardly ever talk about it. . . . Most of the time, an exploit is either found by a security research firm, which then writes about it and reports it to the company so it can fix the problem. Or, a hacker looking for cash will take that found exploit and sell it on the black market. So it would make sense for a group like Shadow Brokers to want to sell their treasure trove, but going public with it is beyond strange. . . .”

Eddie the Friendly Spook endorsed the cover story of the Shadow Brokers’ NSA “hack”–that the event was a hack (despite indicators to the contrary) and that Russia did it. “ . . . If you ask ex-NSA contractor Edward Snowden, the public leak and claims of the Shadow Brokers seem to have Russian fingerprints all over them, and it serves as a warning from Moscow to Washington. The message: If your policymakers keep blaming us for the DNC hack, then we can use this hack to implicate you in much more.‘That could have significant foreign policy consequences,’ Snowden wrote on Twitter. ‘Particularly if any of those operations targeted US allies. Particularly if any of those operations targeted elections. . . .”

The code in the files was from 2013, when Snowden undertook his “op.” “. . . .The code released by the Shadow Brokers dates most recently to 2013, the same year Edward Snowden leaked classified information about the NSA’s surveillance programs.. . .Snowden also noted that the released files end in 2013. ‘When I came forward, NSA would have migrated offensive operations to new servers as a precaution,’ he suggested — a move that would have cut off the hackers’ access to the server. . . . “

Author James Bamford highlighted circumstantial evidence that WikiLeaker Jacob Applebaum–who appears to have facilitated Snowden’s journey from Hawaii to Hong Kong–may have been behind the Shadow Brokers non-hack. “. . . . There also seems to be a link between Assange and the leaker who stole the ANT catalog, and the possible hacking tools. Among Assange’s close associates is Jacob Appelbaum, a celebrated hacktivist and the only publicly known WikiLeaks staffer in the United States – until he moved to Berlin in 2013 in what he called a “political exile” because of what he said was repeated harassment by U.S. law enforcement personnel. In 2010, a Rolling Stone magazine profile labeled him “the most dangerous man in cyberspace.”In December 2013, Appelbaum was the first person to reveal the existence of the ANT catalog, at a conference in Berlin, without identifying the source. That same month he said he suspected the U.S. government of breaking into his Berlin apartment. He also co-wrote an article about the catalog in Der Spiegel. But again, he never named a source, which led many to assume, mistakenly, that it was Snowden. . . .”

Applebaum was anti-Clinton, sentiments expressed in the clumsy Boris and Natasha-like broken English that accompanied announcement of the Shadow Brokers’ gambit. “. . . . Shortly thereafter, he [Applebaum] turned his attention to Hillary Clinton. At a screening of a documentary about Assange in Cannes, France, Appelbaum accused her of having a grudge against him and Assange, and that if she were elected president, she would make their lives difficult. ‘It’s a situation that will possibly get worse’ if she is elected to the White House, he said, according to Yahoo News. . . .. . . . In hacktivist style, and in what appears to be phony broken English, this new release of cyberweapons also seems to be targeting Clinton. It ends with a long and angry ‘final message” against ‘Wealthy Elites . . . breaking laws’ but ‘Elites top friends announce, no law broken, no crime commit[ed]. . . Then Elites run for president. Why run for president when already control country like dictatorship?’ . . .”

The e-mail account used by the Shadow Brokers is in Germany and is resistant to attempts at disclosing users’ information. Applebaum, Laura Poitras, Sarah Harrison and Peter Sunde are in Germany. “. . . He said Tutanota had only ever been forced to hand over encrypted data of its users a few times and it has a transparency report where it discloses those cases. ‘However, we release data only in very, very few cases … And when we have to provide the data due to a court order, it is still encrypted,’ Pfau added, going on to explain the company’s stance on surveillance. . . .”

Recall that, in FTR #’s 891 and 895, we noted that Snowden was working for the CIA in the summer of 2009 when he decided to infiltrate NSA and leak its information. NSA “non-hack” suspect Applebaum and much of the so-called “privacy” advocates have received funding from CIA-derived organizations such as the Broadcasting Board of Governors, Radio Free Asia and the Open Technology Fund. What role is the CIA playing in this? “. . . Jacob Appelbaum’s will­ing­ness to work directly for an old CIA cutout like Radio Free Asia in a nation long tar­geted for regime-change is cer­tainly odd, to say the least. Par­tic­u­larly since Appel­baum made a big pub­lic show recently claim­ing that, though it pains him that Tor takes so much money from the US mil­i­tary, he would never take money from some­thing as evil as the CIA. . . .. . . Appelbaum’s finan­cial rela­tion­ships with var­i­ous CIA spin­offs like Radio Free Asia and the BBG go fur­ther. From 2012 through 2013, Radio Free Asia trans­ferred about $1.1 mil­lion to Tor in the form of grants and con­tracts. This mil­lion dol­lars comes on top of another $3.4 mil­lion Tor received from Radio Free Asia’s par­ent agency, the BBG, start­ing from 2007. . . . . . . . Though many of the apps and tech backed by Radio Free Asia’s OTF are unknown to the gen­eral pub­lic, they are highly respected and extremely pop­u­lar among the anti-surveillance Inter­net activist crowd. OTF-funded apps have been rec­om­mended by Edward Snow­den, cov­ered favor­ably by ProP­ub­lica and The New York Times’ tech­nol­ogy reporters, and repeat­edly pro­moted by the Elec­tronic Fron­tier Foun­da­tion. Every­one seems to agree that OTF-funded pri­vacy apps offer some of the best pro­tec­tion from gov­ern­ment sur­veil­lance you can get. In fact, just about all the fea­tured open-source apps on EFF’s recent “Secure Mes­sag­ing Score­card” were funded by OTF. . . .. . . . You’d think that anti-surveillance activists like Chris Soghoian, Jacob Appel­baum, Cory Doc­torow and Jil­lian York would be staunchly against out­fits like BBG and Radio Free Asia, and the role they have played — and con­tinue to play — in work­ing with defense and cor­po­rate inter­ests to project and impose U.S. power abroad. Instead, these rad­i­cal activists have know­ingly joined the club, and in doing so, have become will­ing pitch­men for a wing of the very same U.S. National Secu­rity State they so adamantly oppose. . . .”

2. The vast bulk of the program material consists of a reading of an excerpt from JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters by James Douglass. As we have seen in so many programs, JFK was moving to drastically reduce Cold War tensions by implementing a number of things, including withdrawing the U.S. from Vietnam and normalizing relations with Cuba.

Continuing a pattern of subverting White House attempts at achieving detente with the former Soviet Union, dominant elements of CIA “painted Oswald red.” A major feature of that successful effort was a visit to Mexico City by Oswald, and/or someone pretending to be Oswald, where the patsy-to-be visited the Cuban consulate and Soviet embassy, ostensibly attempting to obtain entry documents to both countries.

Noteworthy, here, is “Oswald’s” meeting with Valery Kostikov, a KGB assassination expert at the Soviet embassy. This liaison appears to have played into the scenario presented in FTR #925, in which Oswald was linked by elements of the W.A.C.C.F.L. with the assassination of Ukrainian fascist leader Stephan Bandera. Allegedly committed by Bogdan Stashynsky, the killing of Bandera occurred on the same day as Oswald’s defection to the former Soviet Union. W.A.C.C.F.L.-linked elements distributed the disinformation that Oswald had been trained by the KGB along with Stashynsky. We noted in FTR #925that the head of a broken key to Bandera’s apartment was still in the lock two years later, as Stashynsky was on trial! Furthermore, Stashynsky still had the broken-off shaft of the key in his possession, linking him to a capital crime and opening him up to “termination with extreme prejudice” by the KGB, had he actually been in there employ.

Signficant aspects of the “Oswald” who operated in Mexico City:

The “Oswald” who contacted the Soviet Embassy spoke broken Russian. ” . . . . Equally noteworthy in the October 9 cable is the evidence it provides that the “Lee Oswald” who made the October 1 phone call was an impostor. The caller, it said, “spoke broken Russian.” The real Oswald was fluent in Russian. . . .”

The “Oswald” who visited the Soviet Embassy did not appear to be Oswald. ” . . . . The cable went on to say that the Mexico City Station had surveillance photos of a man who appeared to be an American entering and leaving the Soviet Embassy on October 1. He was described as ‘apparent age 35, athletic build, circa 6 feet, receding hairline, balding top.’ In a CIA cable back to Mexico City on October 10, the Lee Oswald who defected to the U.S.S.R. in October 1959 was described as not quite 24, ‘five feet ten inches, one hundred sixty five pounds, light brown wavy hair, blue eyes.’ . . .”

The “Oswald” who contacted the Cubans in Mexico City behaved strangely, arousing the suspicion of diplomats and employees of the embassy. ” . . . [Silvia] Duran was a little suspicious of Oswald. She felt the American was too eager in displaying his leftist credentials: membership cards in the Fair Play for Cuba Committee and the American Communist Party, old Soviet documents, a newspaper clipping on his arrest in New Orleans, a photo of Oswald being escorted by a policeman on each arm that Duran thought looked Phony. Duran also knew that belonging to the Communist Party was illegal in Mexico in 1963. For that reason, a Communist would normally travel in the country with only a passport. Yet here was Oswald documented in a way that invited his arrest. . . .”

Soviet diplomats were also confronted with strange behavior: ” . . . Oswald listened with growing exasperation. ‘When I had finished speaking,’ Nechiporenko recalled, ‘he slowly leaned forward and, barely able to restrain himself, practically shouted in my face, ‘This won’t do for me? This is not my case? For me, it’s all going to end in tragedy!’ Nechiporenko showed the unruly American out of the compound. Oswald returned to the Soviet Embassy the next morning. He renewed his request for a quick visa to the U.S.S.R., this time to Valery Kostikov (this being their September 28 meeting) and Soviet consul Pavel Yatskov. Oswald became even more agitated than he had been the day before, referring to FBI surveillance and persecution. He took a revolver from his jacket pocket, placed it on a table, and said, ‘See? This is what I must now carry to protect my life.’ The Soviet officials carefully took the gun and removed its bullets. They told Oswald once again they could not give him a quick visa. They offered him instead the necessary forms to be filled out. Oswald didn’t take them. Oleg Nechiporenko joined the three men as their conversation was ending. For the second day in a row, he accompanied a depressed Oswald to the gate of the embassy, this time with Oswald’s returned revolver and its loose bullets stuck back in his jacket pocket. Nechiporenko says that he, Kostikov, and Yatskov then immediately prepared a report on Oswald’s two embassy visits that they cabled to Moscow Center. . . .”

Significant elements of the “Oswald” visit appear to have been fabricated from whole cloth: ” . . . Oswald’s three visits to the Cuban Consulate on September 27, and his two visits to the Soviet Embassy on September 28 phone transcript sent by Richard Helms to J. Edgar Hoover. The CIA’s transcript states that the Saturday, September 28, call came from the Cuban Consulate. The first speaker is identified as Silvia Duran. The first speaker is identified as Silvia Duran. However, Silvia Duran has insisted repeatedly over the years, first, that the Cuban Embassy was closed to the public on Saturdays, and second, that she never took part in such a call. ‘Duran’ is said to be phoning the Soviet Consulate. Oleg Nechiporenko denies in turn that this call occurred. He says it was impossible because the Soviet switchboard was closed. The ‘Duran’ speaker in the transcript says that an American in her consulate, who had been in the Soviet Embassy, wants to talk to them. She passes the phone to a North American man. The American insists that he and the Soviet representative speak Russian. They engage in a conversation, with the American speaking with the translator describes as ‘terrible hardly recognizable Russian.’ This once again argues against the speaker being Oswald, given his fluent Russian. . . .”

The upshot of the ersatz Oswald operating in Mexico City, linking himself to the Cubans and Soviets and, in turn, to KGB assassination expert Valery Kostikov, was to position the incoming President (LBJ) to pursue a heightened Cold War, neutralizing JFK’s attempts at establishing detente with the Soviet Union: ” . . . . One must give the CIA (and the assassination sponsors that were even further in the shadows) their due for having devised and executed a brilliant setup. They had played out a scenario to Kennedy’s death in Dallas that pressured other government authorities to choose among three major options: a war of vengeance against Cuba and the Soviet Union based on the CIA’s false Mexico City documentation of a Communist assassination plot; a domestic political war based on the same documents seen truly, but a war the CIA would fight with every covert weapon at its command; or a complete cover-up of any conspiracy evidence and a silent coup d’etat that would reverse Kennedy’s efforts to end the Cold War. . . .”

. . . . According to the Warren Report, Lee Harvey Oswald was in Mexico City from September 27 to October 2, 1963, and visited both the Cuban and Soviet Consulates. This is the point at which the person Lee Harvey Oswald begins to disappear down a black hole. As a Cold War actor who took on assigned roles, the person Oswald was never easy to see. In Mexico City, the real Oswald almost drops out of sight, but with his absence covered by impersonators and the CIA’s smoke and mirrors.

The CIA’s Mexico City Station kept a close watch on activities at the Cuban and Soviet Consulates. Agents had set up hidden observation posts across the street that took pictures of visitors to the two sites. The Agency had also wiretapped the phones at both the Cuban And Soviet facilities. Thus, the CIA had front-row surveillance seats for what transpired there.

The Agency’s reports on what were supposedly Lee Harvey Oswald’s visits and phone calls to the two consulates inadvertently revealed more about the CIA than they ever did about Oswald. The Mexico City story being created about Oswald in carefully preserved documents was written with such dexterity in some places, and with such clumsiness in others, that it eventually drew more attention to itself and its authors than it did to its fictionalized subject. As a result, what Oswald himself really did in Mexico City is in fact less certain today than what the CIA did in his name. The documents containing this self-revelation have finally been declassified and made available to the available to the American public during the past decade as a result of the JFK Records Act passed by Congress in 1992. However, only a few dedicated researchers of the Kennedy assassination have studied these materials and have understood their implications.

On October 9, 1963, CIA headquarters received a cable from its Mexico City Station about an October 1 phone call to the Soviet Consulate that had been wiretapped, taped, transcribed, and translated from Russian into English. The call came from “an American male who spoke broken Russian” and who “said his name [was] Lee Oswald.” The man who said he was Oswald stated that he had been at the Soviet Embassy on September 28, when he spoke with a consul he believed was Valery Vladimirovich Kostikov. He asked “if there [was] anything new re telegram to Washington.” The Soviet guard who answered the phone said nothing had been received yet, but the request had been sent. He then hung up.

The CIA’s October 9 cable from Mexico City is noteworthy in two respects. The first is the connection between Oswald and Valery Vladimirovich Kostikov. Kostikov was well known to the CIA and FBI as the KGB (Soviet Committee for State Security) agent in Mexico City who directed Former FBI director Clarence M. Kelly stressed in his autobiography: “The importance of Kostikov cannot be overstated. As [Dallas FBI agent] Jim Hosty wrote later: ‘Kostikov was the officer-in-charge for Western Hemisphere terrorist activities–including and especially assassination. In military ranking he would have been a one-star general. As the Russians would say, he was their Line V man–the most dangerous KGB terrorist assigned to this hemisphere!’”

Equally noteworthy in the October 9 cable is the evidence it provides that the “Lee Oswald” who made the October 1 phone call was an impostor. The caller, it said, “spoke broken Russian.” The real Oswald was fluent in Russian. The cable went on to say that the Mexico City Station had surveillance photos of a man who appeared to be an American entering and leaving the Soviet Embassy on October 1. He was described as “apparent age 35, athletic build, circa 6 feet, receding hairline, balding top.” In a CIA cable back to Mexico City on October 10, the Lee Oswald who defected to the U.S.S.R. in October 1959 was described as not quite 24, “five feet ten inches, one hundred sixty five pounds, light brown wavy hair, blue eyes.”

What one is confronted with in the October 9 cable is an apparently damning connection between Oswald and a KGB assassination expert, but a connection made by a man impersonating Oswald. It is the beginning of a two-tracks Mexico City story. On one track is the CIA’s attempt to document Oswald’s complicity with the Soviet Union and Cuba in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. On the other track is the recurring evidence within the same documents of a fraudulent Oswald at work.

Given the notoriety of Valery Kostikov in U.S. intelligence circles, it is remarkable that when CIA headquarters cabled the State Department, the FBI, and the Navy on October 10 to relay the wiretapped information it had received on Oswald the day before, the cable made no reference to his specific connection with Kostikov. Kostikov was not even mentioned. This would be like a 2001 intelligence report on a suspected terrorist neglecting to mention that he had just met with Osama bin Laden. CIA headquarters was keeping its knowledge of the Oswald-Kostikov connection close to its vest. The CIA’s silence regarding Kostikov was maintained just long enough for Oswald to be moved quietly (without being placed on the FBI’s Security Index) into a position overlooking Dealey Plaza on November 22. After the assassination, the CIA used its dormant Mexico City documents to link the accused assassin Oswald with the KGB ‘s Kostikov.

On November 25, 1863, Richard Helms sent a memorandum to J. Edgar Hoover that marshaled the CIA’s phone-tapped evidence suggesting that Oswald had received not only Soviet but also Cuban government support in assassinating Kennedy. Attached to the Helms memorandum were transcripts for the audiotapes of seven calls to the Soviet Mexico City embassy attributed to Oswald. Two of them stood out. One was the October 1 call in which “Oswald” identified Kostikov as the Soviet consul he had met with on September 28. In the other outstanding call, reportedly made on September 28, the same man, speaking from the Cuban Consulate, made reference to his having just been at the Soviet Embassy. To understand this revealing call, we need to put it in the context of what may or may not have been the real Oswald’s shuttles between the Cuban and Soviet Consulates during his first two days in Mexico City, September 27 and 28.

Given Lee Harvey Oswald’s willingness to take on intelligence roles, the primary question concerning his visits to the Cuban and Soviet Consulates is not: Was it really he? Whether it was Oswald or someone using his name, the “he” was still an actor following a script. If the actor was himself, from his limited standpoint his role’s purpose would have been, as in New Orleans, to discredit the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in a minor Cold war battle. According to an FBI memorandum dated September 18, 1963, discovered by the Church Committee, the CIA advised the FBI two days earlier that the “Agency is giving some consideration to countering the activities of [the FPCC] in foreign countries.” Nine days later in Mexico City, “Oswald” visited the Cuban and Soviet Consulates displaying his FPCC credentials and seeking visas to both those communist countries. Whether it was Oswald or not who was playing out another FPCC-discrediting role in his name, the more basic question is: What was the Mexico City scenario’s purpose in the larger script written for the President’s murder? It is this question of ultimate purpose that the CIA’s Mexico City surveillance tapes will assist us in answering, after we first consider the September 27-28 visits to the consulates that were acted in the name of Oswald.

According to Silvia Duran, the Cuban Consulate’s Mexican employee who spoke with Oswald, he (or an impostor) visited their consulate three times on Friday, September 27. At his 11:00 A.M. visit Oswald applied for a Cuban transit visa for a trip to the Soviet Union. Duran was a little suspicious of Oswald. She felt the American was too eager in displaying his leftist credentials: membership cards in the Fair Play for Cuba Committee and the American Communist Party, old Soviet documents, a newspaper clipping on his arrest in New Orleans, a photo of Oswald being escorted by a policeman on each arm that Duran thought looked Phony. Duran also knew that belonging to the Communist Party was illegal in Mexico in 1963. For that reason, a Communist would normally travel in the country with only a passport. Yet here was Oswald documented in a way that invited his arrest.

Duran told Oswald he lacked the photographs he needed for his visa application. She also said he would first need permission to visit the Soviet Union before he could be issued a transit visa for Cuba. Visibly upset, Oswald departed, but returned to the consulate an hour later with his visa photos.

In the late afternoon, Oswald returned again to the Cuban Consulate, insisting this time to Silvia Duran that he be granted a Cuban visa at once. He claimed that the Soviet Consulate had just assured him he would be given a Soviet visa. Duran checked by phone with the Soviets and learned otherwise. She told Oswald, who then flew into a rage. He ranted at Duran, then at the Cuban consul, Eusebio Azcue, who had stepped out of his office into the commotion. Oswald raged in response to Azcue’s explanation of the visa procedure. Azcue yelled back at him. Oswald called Azcue and Duran mere “bureaucrats.” Then, as Silvia Duran recalled in 1978 to the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), Azcue went to the door, opened it, and asked Oswald to leave. The extraordinary episode had, perhaps as intended, left an indelible impression on Duran and Azcue.

Oswald’s two visits to the Soviet Embassy have been described by the KGB officer who served as its vice consul, Col. Oleg Maximovich Nechiporenko, in his 1993 memoir Passport to Assassination. At his first visit on Friday afternoon, September 27, Oswald did indeed speak briefly with Valery Vladimirovich Kostikov. Nechiporenko refers to Kostikov casually as “one of the consulate employees who on that particular day was receiving visitors from eleven in the morning until one in the afternoon.” Oswald said he was seeking a visa to the Soviet Union. Kostikov handed him over to Nechiporenko, who listened to Oswald’s urgent request for an immediate visa. Nechiporenko explained that their Washington, D.C., embassy handled all matters regarding travel to the Soviet Union. He could make an exception for Oswald and send his papers on to Moscow, “but the answer would still be sent to his permanent residence, and it would take, at the very least, four months.”

Oswald listened with growing exasperation. “When I had finished speaking,” Nechiporenko recalled, “he slowly leaned forward and, barely able to restrain himself, practically shouted in my face, ‘This won’t do for me? This is not my case? For me, it’s all going to end in tragedy!” Nechiporenko showed the unruly American out of the compound.

Oswald returned to the Soviet Embassy the next morning. He renewed his request for a quick visa to the U.S.S.R., this time to Valery Kostikov (this being their September 28 meeting) and Soviet consul Pavel Yatskov. Oswald became even more agitated than he had been the day before, referring to FBI surveillance and persecution. He took a revolver from his jacket pocket, placed it on a table, and said, “See? This is what I must now carry to protect my life.” The Soviet officials carefully took the gun and removed its bullets. They told Oswald once again they could not give him a quick visa. They offered him instead the necessary forms to be filled out. Oswald didn’t take them. Oleg Nechiporenko joined the three men as their conversation was ending. For the second day in a row, he accompanied a depressed Oswald to the gate of the embassy, this time with Oswald’s returned revolver and its loose bullets stuck back in his jacket pocket. Nechiporenko says that he, Kostikov, and Yatskov then immediately prepared a report on Oswald’s two embassy visits that they cabled to Moscow Center.

Oswald’s three visits to the Cuban Consulate on September 27, and his two visits to the Soviet Embassy on September 28 phone transcript sent by Richard Helms to J. Edgar Hoover. The CIA’s transcript states that the Saturday, September 28, call came from the Cuban Consulate. The first speaker is identified as Silvia Duran. However, Silvia Duran has insisted repeatedly over the years, first, that the Cuban Embassy was closed to the public on Saturdays, and second, that she never took part in such a call.

“Duran” is said to be phoning the Soviet Consulate. Oleg Nechiporenko denies in turn that this call occurred. He says it was impossible because the Soviet switchboard was closed.

The “Duran” speaker in the transcript says that an American in her consulate, who had been in the Soviet Embassy, wants to talk to them. She passes the phone to a North American man. The American insists that he and the Soviet representative speak Russian. They engage in a conversation, with the American speaking with the translator describes as “terrible hardly recognizable Russian.” This once again argues against the speaker being Oswald, given his fluent Russian. The CIA transcript of this unlikely conversation then reads:

NORTH AMERICAN: “I was just now at your embassy and they took my address.”

SOVIET: “I know that.”

NORTH AMERICAN: “I did not know it then. I went to the Cuban Embassy to ask them for my address because they have it.”

SOVIET: “Why don’t you come again and leave your address with us. It is not far fro he Cuban Embassy.”

NORTH AMERICAN: “Well, I’ll be there right away.”

What is the purpose behind this strange, counterfeit dialogue?

Richard Helms, in his accompanying letter to J. Edgar Hoover, states that the “North American” in the Saturday, September 28, call is the same man who identified himself as Lee Oswald in the October 1 call (which confirmed and documented Oswald’s Saturday meeting with Kostikov). In that connection the bogus Saturday call has “Oswald” saying he was “just now” at the Soviet Embassy (with KGB assassination expert Kostikov) and that his correct address is known only by the Cuban Embassy, not himself. He will bring it to the Soviets. Thus, in the CIA’s interpretation of events, documented by fraudulent phone calls, the Cuban authorities and Soviet assassin Kostikov were working together in their control of Oswald’s address and movements, two months before Kennedy’s assassination. As researcher John Newman said in a presentation on these documents, “It looks like the Cubans and the Russians are working in tandem. It looks like [Oswald] is going to meet with Kostikov at a place designated by the Cubans . . . Oswald expected to be at some location fixed by the Cuban Embassy and wanted the Russians to be able to reach him there.”

In addition, Oswald (or an impostor) was applying for Cuban and Soviet visas, which could be used as evidence of his attempting to gain asylum in Communist countries. The Mexico City scenario had laid the foundation for blaming the president’s upcoming murder on Cuba and the U.S.S.R., thereby providing the rationale in its aftermath for an invasion of Cuba and a possible nuclear attack on Russia.

The alarming implications of the CIA’s Mexico City case against Oswald had to be faced on the morning after the assassination by the new president, Lyndon Baines Johnson. As a result of the public disclosure under the JFK Act of LBJ’s taped conversations, we now know how Johnson was informed of the CIA setup. Michael Beschloss, editor of the Johnson tapes, tells us that at 9:20 A.M. on November 23, 1963, Johnson was briefed by CIA director John McCone about “information on foreign connections to the alleged assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, which suggested to LBJ that Kennedy may have been murdered by an international conspiracy.” Then at 10:01 A.M. Johnson received a phone briefing on Oswald from FBI director J. Edgar Hoover. It included the following exchange:

LBJ: “Have you established any more about the visit to the Soviet embassy in Mexico in September?”

HOOVER: “No, that’s one angle that’s very confusing, for this reason–we have up here the tape and the photograph of the man who was at the Soviet embassy, using Oswald’s name. That picture and the tape do not correspond to this man’s voice, nor to his appearance. In other words, it appears that there is a second person who was at thee Soviet embassy down there. We do have a copy of a letter which was written by Oswald to the Soviet embassy here in Washington [a November 9. 1963, letter that Oswald began by referring to ‘my meetings with comrade Kostin in the Embassy of the Soviet Union, Mexico City, Mexico,’ which was interpreted to mean Kostikov] . . . Now if we can identify this man who was at the . . . Soviet embassy in Mexico City . . .”

Having just been briefed on Oswald by CIA director McCone, Johnson was anxious to get to the bottom of “the visit to the Soviet embassy in Mexico in September.” Hoover’s briefing adds to Johnson’s anxiety. Hoover confronts Johnson with strong evidence of an Oswald impostor at the Soviet Embassy: “The tape and the photograph of the man who was at the Soviet embassy: do not correspond to “this man’s [Oswald’s] voice, nor to his appearance.” Hoover knows very well that the falsified evidence of a Cuban-Soviet plot to kill Kennedy (which Johnson has just been given by McCone) came from the CIA. Hoover simply gives Johnson the raw fact of an Oswald impostor in Mexico City, then lets Johnson chew on its implications. Hoover’s own reaction to the CIA’s Mexico subterfuge was recorded seven weeks later, when he scribbled at the bottom of an FBI memorandum about keeping up with CIA operations in the United States: “O.K., but I hope you are not being taken in. I can’t forget the CIA withholding the French espionage activities in the USA nor the false story re Oswald’s trip Mexico, only to mention two instances of their double dealing.”

Lyndon Johnson’s CIA and FBI briefings left him with two unpalatable interpretations of Mexico City. According to the CIA, Oswald was part of a Cuban-Soviet assassination plot that was revealed by the audio-visual materials garnered by its surveillance techniques. According to Hoover, Oswald had been impersonated in Mexico City, as shown by a more critical examination of the same CIA materials. Hoover left it to Johnson to draw his own conclusions as to who was responsible for that impersonation.

The CIA’s case scapegoated Cuba and U.S.S.R. through Oswald for the president’s assassination and steered the United states toward an invasion of Cuba and a nuclear attack on the U.S.S.R. However, LBJ did not want to begin and end his presidency with a global war.

Hoover’s view suggested CIA complicity in the assassination. Even assuming for the moment that Johnson himself was innocent of any foreknowledge or involvement in the plot, nevertheless for the new president to confront the CIA over Kennedy’s murder, in a war within the U.S. government, would have been at least as frightening for him as an international crisis.

One must give the CIA (and the assassination sponsors that were even further in the shadows) their due for having devised and executed a brilliant setup. They had played out a scenario to Kennedy’s death in Dallas that pressured other government authorities to choose among three major options: a war of vengeance against Cuba and the Soviet Union based on the CIA’s false Mexico City documentation of a Communist assassination plot; a domestic political war based on the same documents seen truly, but a war the CIA would fight with every covert weapon at its command; or a complete cover-up of any conspiracy evidence and a silent coup d’etat that would reverse Kennedy’s efforts to end the Cold War. . . .

3. One of the results of the Snowden “op” was the death of the Obama/Clinton State Department’s attempted re-boot with Russia. In this regard, the actions of the Obverse Oswald are similar to the way that the painting of Oswald Red served to exacerbate Cold War tensions.

The killing of the attempted diplomatic rapprochement with Russia was, in turn, central to the realization of the destabilization of the Yanukovich government in Ukraine and the installation of the heirs to Stephan Bandera’s OUN/B in the Maidan coup.

(Recall that the Maidan coup was financed, in part, by Pierre Omidyar, whose First Look Media were not only recipients of Snowden’s purloined files, but served as the journalistic platform for Glenn Greenwald, Snowden’s leaking journalist of choice.)

Blamed on the KGB, the killing was–in all likelihood–performed by BND (German foreign intelligence and the successor to the Reinhard Gehlen “org”) or other Underground Reich-connected elements, possibly elements of CIA.

We highlight the dis­in­for­ma­tion point­ing to Lee Har­vey Oswald as a KGB-trained assassin. (The disinformation was spread by the World Anti-Communist Congress for Freedom and Liberation–the forerunner of the World Anti-Communist League.)

(The ersatz Oswald in Mexico City, meeting with Valety Kostikov, a KGB assassination expert, supplemented and further developed this element of disinformation.)

Attempt­ing to pin the assas­si­na­tion on the Sovi­ets and/or Cubans, these ele­ments spurred many lib­er­als to endorse the “Oswald as lone-nut” hypoth­e­sis. They were afraid that the assas­si­na­tion could lead to nuclear war, if the per­cep­tion gained traction that Oswald was a com­mu­nist. A cen­tral ele­ment in this dis­in­for­ma­tion ploy was an attempt to con­nect the JFK assas­si­na­tion to the death of Stephan Ban­dera, allegedly per­formed by an KGB assas­sin named Bog­dan Stashyn­sky.

We noted in FTR #925that the head of a broken key to Bandera’s apartment was still in the lock two years later, as Stashynsky was on trial! Furthermore, Stashynsky still had the broken-off shaft of the key in his possession, linking him to a capital crime and opening him up to “termination with extreme prejudice” by the KGB, had he actually been in there employ.

Murdered on the same day that Lee Harvey Oswald “defected” to the Soviet Union, Bandera’s killing was linked to Oswald’s alleged killing of JFK by elements associated with the W.A.C.C.F.L.

W.A.C.C.F.L. ele­ments dis­sem­i­nated the lie that Oswald was trained at the same facil­ity as Stashyn­sky, and that the JFK hit was part of a Soviet pro­gram of assas­si­na­tion of West­ern polit­i­cal lead­ers. It should be noted that W.A.C.C.F.L.-related ele­ments also fig­ured promi­nently in the “han­dling” of Oswald in New Orleans, Dal­las and (pos­si­bly) the Soviet Union.

Those W.A.C.C.F.L. elements were closely associated with the OUN/B and the Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations, a consortium of Eastern European fascist groups inextricably linked with the Gehlen organization, the BND, the CIA and the Underground Reich.

The disinformation that Oswald was a KGB assassin was inserted into a Senate Subcommittee report by Sen. Thomas Dodd, with assistance from elements of CIA.

Discussion

Now that Donald Trump has made is clear that the final stretch of his campaign is going to largely be attempt to convince as many people as people that a globalist conspiracy of “international bankers” working in secret to destroy US sovereignty and media elites are conspiring to rig the election against him, and now that his supporters have made it clear that they’re quite receptive to his message along with messageslike “Hillary needs to be ‘taken out’ if she wins”, it’s unfortunately worth noting that the Trump campaign has sort of become a multidimensional metaphor for the JFK assassination: First, we have Trump basically trying to encourage supporters to play the role of Hillary’s ‘Oswald’, except Oswald was a patsy and Trump’s Oswald most certainly wouldn’t be. But we also have the Trump campaign acting like the Warren Commission by feverishly pushing a cover story that no one can believe, except the Warren Commission was dead set on proving that there was no conspiracy after a horrific assassination and Trump is asserting there’s a massive secret global conspiracy as part of an attempt to encourage an assassination. And instead of Oswald getting ‘painted Red’ in his work as an intelligence agent, we have Trump using his “international bankers” conspiracy theory to paint himself as the most ‘Red, White, and Blue’ candidate ever. So he’s not so much an Obverse Oswald as he is an Obverse JFK Assassination Experience.

With that bizarre parallel in mind, it’s also worth noting that Roger Stone continues to do Trump campaign’s outreach to the JFK assassination research community. And while they may not be a big enough community to garner Trump a significant number of votes, if he loses the election and decides to turn his “anti-Trump international bankers” conspiracy theory into a cottage industry it could be one of the most important community for Trump’s post-election life so we should probably be aware of these inroads:

The New York Times

In Donald Trump, Conspiracy Fans Find a Campaign to Believe In

By CAMPBELL ROBERTSON
OCT. 17, 2016

KENNER, La. — “What the government tells you is rarely the truth, and it’s never the complete truth,” proclaimed Roger Stone, the veteran political operative and longtime confidant of Donald J. Trump.

To the approving hoots of several dozen audience members on Sunday in a conference room at the Crowne Plaza New Orleans Airport Hotel, Mr. Stone went on to contend that his candidate was no tool of the elite power brokers at the Trilateral Commission or the Bilderberg meetings — and then he asserted paternity cover-ups within the Clinton family, declared that one group supporting Hillary Clinton was a “criminal-based money-laundering operation” and promised “devastating” revelations among hacked emails yet to be released.

And, in a brief detour, he explained that Lyndon B. Johnson helped orchestrate the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

The last part, while hardly the focus of Mr. Stone’s speech, was what had brought him, for the second year in a row, to the annual Lee Harvey Oswald Conference, a gathering of conspiracy amateurs and prolific authors that is timed around Oswald’s birthday (Oct. 18). The conference is dedicated to the proposition, as the conference organizer explained in his introductory remarks, that “Lee Harvey Oswald was a patsy and that it was a coup d’état that happened and we lost our country.”

At a time when talk of having lost the country is very much in vogue, along with deep suspicions of a powerful and secretive elite, the symposium seemed remarkably of the moment.

In between the dissections of events from 53 years ago, the proceedings repeatedly came back to the current election. Mr. Trump, the Republican nominee, who for years raised doubts about whether President Obama was born in the United States, has charged that the election is “one big fix” and has accused Mrs. Clinton of meeting secretly with global financial powers “to plot the destruction of U.S. sovereignty,” all while intelligence officials warn of covert Russian attempts to manipulate the vote.

The idea that political figures are at the whim of shadowy forces is a core principle of the conference. The notion that elections have always been rigged was echoed by at least one presenter: Sean Stone, the son of the director Oliver Stone, whose 1991 film “JFK” is effectively one of the conference’s founding documents. There was also extensive and generally favorable discussion of claims put forward by Mr. Trump that Senator Ted Cruz’s father had played a role in a conspiracy behind the Kennedy assassination.

But the Oswald conference is not easy to classify politically. If there was any “party” loyalty, it was with Oswald, considered an honorable patriot manipulated and impugned by conspirators, and with Kennedy, described by one attendee as among the country’s great conservatives and by one speaker as a “kind of better-looking Bernie Sanders.”

Kris Millegan, an amiable publisher of conspiracy books and the chief organizer of the conference — and a self-described “Bernie man” — said the politics here flouted the usual labels.

“When you get people from the far left and far right, they’re really kind of saying the same things,” he said.

Still, he acknowledged, some of the things they are saying have been embraced by the Trump campaign. Trust in the government began falling shortly after the assassination, surveys show, and has never been as high since. Although trust in the mass media was high in the mid-1970s, it recently reached its lowest point in decades.

A sense that some vital national essence was lost on Nov. 22, 1963, was alluded to again and again at the conference. There was also a conviction that the forces that had taken it away were still in control.

“If they did that to us 50-some-odd years ago, what are they doing today?” asked the Rev. Hy McEnery, 65, a New Orleans chaplain and a committed Trump supporter who also had questions about whether the BP oil spill had been planned.

In the beer garden of a biker bar on Saturday night, a celebration of Oswald’s birthday included a cake, a “Happy Birthday” singalong and live music performed by Saint John Hunt, a son of E. Howard Hunt, one of the Richard M. Nixon operatives implicated in the Watergate break-in.

…

To some at the conference, there was little to do about this but despair. The books on sale depicted forces aligned against the truth on an almost incomprehensible scale, arguing that the public was being duped about the Kennedy assassination, Watergate, the Sept. 11 attacks, the origin of H.I.V. and AIDS, the Nuremberg trials, the Federal Reserve, vaccinations, U.F.O.s and countless other matters. The idea that a vote for any candidate would make a difference, several said wearily, just seemed naïve.

But Mr. Stone’s brash confidence convinced others that this election was a chance to fight back — and when internet connectivity in the conference room suddenly dropped out during Mr. Stone’s speech, they saw it as a sign that someone saw Mr. Trump as a threat who had to be suppressed.

Mr. Stone finished his remarks to a somewhat divided audience — some members muttering their disagreement and others roaring with approval — and then began signing copies of his book on the secrets of the Bush family.

A man approached and raised the topic of Justice Antonin Scalia’s death in February. It seemed terribly convenient, the man suggested, leaving the Supreme Court at a 4-to-4 ideological stalemate before a potentially close election, and he asked Mr. Stone if he thought the death might have been orchestrated.

“To the approving hoots of several dozen audience members on Sunday in a conference room at the Crowne Plaza New Orleans Airport Hotel, Mr. Stone went on to contend that his candidate was no tool of the elite power brokers at the Trilateral Commission or the Bilderberg meetings — and then he asserted paternity cover-ups within the Clinton family, declared that one group supporting Hillary Clinton was a “criminal-based money-laundering operation” and promised “devastating” revelations among hacked emails yet to be released.”

Yes, Roger Stone wants the audience to know that Donald Trump is totally not one of the power elite. Quite the opposite! He’s fighting for the little guy and that’s why the global elite are conspiring against him! That’s the message from a political fixer who has specialized in grassroots divide-and-conquer tactics for the GOP power elites decades and who has a tattoo of Richard Nixon on his back.

There’s got to be a teachable moment for the JFK research community somewhere here.